Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-08
THE SUPREME COURT ON PRoHIBI-
TON

The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States on the question of pro-
hibition by States of the liquor traffic, takes
the Prohibition question out of national
politics.
Kansas has prohibition ordinances. It
was contended that they were in conflict
with the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which
provides that no State shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the priv
ileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property with
out due process of Law. The Court holds
that legislation by 4 State prohibiting the
manufacture within her limits of intoxi
eating liquors to be sold or bartered for
general use as beverage does not necessarily
infringe any right, privilege or immunity
secured by the Constitution of the United
States
But it was contended that while State
might prohibit the manufacture of intoxi-
eating liquors for general use within her
limits, no State can prohibit manufacture
of liquors for export, or for the personal
use Of the maker. This claim was based
upon the guarantees of the Constitution of
protection to life, liberty and property, and
that the right to manufacture food or
drink for ones own Use is included in that
guarantee. But the Court calls attention
to the fact that this claim must be subject
to the restriction that such manufacture
does not preudicially affect the rights of
Others or the best interests Of the COM
munity, hence society has the right to pro-
tect itself by legislation against the injuri-
Gus consequences of liquor manufacture
The Government may require the citizen
TO so use his own property as not unneces-
sarily to injure another. The power to de-
termine what is injurious to society is
lodged in the legislative branch of the
Government, which exerts what are known
as the police powers of the States That
power must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or needful for
protection of public morals, health and
safety. That power having in Kansas de-
termined the need, within the limits of
that State, says the Court:
Il IS difficult to perceive any ground for !
ludlcially declaring that prohibition by Kansas
OF the manufacture Tor sale within her limits of
Intoxicating liquors for general use fhera az |
beverage, IS rot fairly adapted to The end ~ |
protecting the community against the owls
which confessedly result from the xcessiye 1sa |
OF srdent spirits
We csncot shut out of our view the fact that !
the public health, morals and public safety may I
be endangered 10y the general use Of intoxi I
eating drinks, nor can we ignore the fact that
Sae disorder, pduperisIn and crime prevalent in
the country are IN large measure directly trace
able 20 this end.
II, therefore the State deems the absolute nrn. !
hibition of the manufacture aud sale within its I
limits OF intoxicating liquors 10 &c necessary /
for The peace and security OF society Courts !
cannot override the viii of the people as TINS (
expressed by their chosen representatives
The Court then adds that it is funda- |
mental principle in our institutions, indis- /
pensable to the preservation of public !
liberty, that one of the separate depart
ments of the Government shall not usurp |
the powers committed by the Constitu- |
tion TO another.
In response to the claim that the pro-